Chicago Curfew: City Council Approves Stricter Law For Kids 12 And Younger

The Chicago City Council approved, without debate, a more strict citywide curfew for children 12 years of age or younger Thursday.

Unsupervised minors aged 12 and younger will now need to be in their homes by 8:30 p.m. on weekdays and by 9 p.m. on the weekends in order to avoid a fine of up to $500 or community service. Three offenses within a one-year period will be subjected to a $1,500 fine in addition to community service, according to a statement from Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who, along with Chicago Police Department Superintendent Garry McCarthy, was a strong proponent of the ordinance.

"I advocated for curfew laws while serving President Clinton because I believe the safest place for a child is at home," Emanuel said. "I commend the aldermen for getting this ordinance passed. This is another tool that will help fight crime and help children from becoming victims of crime."

Minors aged 12 to 16 will be required to continue to adhere to the existing curfew of being indoors by 10 p.m. on weekdays and by 11 p.m. on weekends, according to the statement.

Alderman Toni Foulkes (15th) was among a group of three aldermen who proposed the changes to the city's curfew law earlier this month. Foulkes told the Chicago Defender that the existing law had given kids "too much leeway."

"A 5-year-old has the same ordinance as a 17-year-old," Foulkes told the Defender. "It's basically just to protect those children."

The city points to studies indicating that other cities -- like San Antonio, Tex., and Detroit, Mich. -- who instituted similarly strengthened curfew laws saw a reduction in both youth violence and arrests.

It should be pointed out that none of those cities, however, are as large and were likely not anywhere near as budget-strained or short on police manpower at the time they were evaluated -- 1997 in the case of the San Antonio study -- as Chicago is today. Other studies, such as one of California crime data in 1998, have shown that stricter curfews did not lead to a reduction in youth-involved crime.

Fraternal Order of Police President Mike Shields seemed to express a fair degree of skepticism regarding whether the ordinance would have much of an impact beyond symbolism, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

“It’s not going to be enforceable," Shields told the Sun-Times. "If we can’t enforce laws to curb street violence because of manpower issues, how can we enforce [and even stricter] curfew law?"

Alderman Anthony Beale (9th Ward), former Police Committee Chairman, also was previously not a fan of the ordinance, though he joined his colleagues in approving it Thursday, which he said could "penalize our children for enjoying the summer months," according to the Sun-Times.

The new curfew law goes into effect Sept. 18.

Comments

[Benjamin Sisko]

03:25 AM on 08/03/2011

I'm confused. At 8:30 pm, shouldn't kids be doing their homework after a full day that included going to school, engaging in some sort of positive extra-curricular activity and having dinner with one or both parents? Or has this kind of normality yielded to the chaos that is 21st century America?

[leajazz]

09:59 AM on 08/03/2011

I moved out here (one of a few reasons) to help my sister raise her daughter. They came over every school night for a healthy dinner then homework at the kitchen table and fed/played with horses. We went out and played on weekends.

[leajazz]

10:01 AM on 08/03/2011

"Or has this kind of normality yielded to the chaos that is 21st century America?”

Yep.

[A Dub]

02:22 PM on 08/02/2011

That is absolutely ridiculous. Now everyone is going to live in a police state!

[Araminta Ross]

01:48 AM on 07/31/2011

What good is a curfew if the parents aren't engaging when they are home. This is again an example of pharmaceutical policy: treat the symptom but not address the problem.

[Atwill]

07:18 PM on 07/30/2011

12 and under? When I was a kid if I was not home when my step mother told me to be home, i'd get my butt kicked. That was a strong enough curfew for me. and that was when i was 16.

[lezahgg]

12:14 PM on 07/30/2011

In principal this sounds very reasonable. I don't think the under 12 set is responsible for much crime but are sadly too often the victims of drive by shootings and this would protect them. Unfortunately if the city is making fewer arrests for lower level crimes because there is not enough money to prosecute them, then changing the curfew is meaningless because the city can't enforce it.

[dukeanddad]

05:08 PM on 07/29/2011

Can't you just see it--"car such-'n'-such can't answer the shots fired call because we have a twelve-year under arrest in the unit". Chicago is working overtime to reduce crime on the streets. So if you are 12 years old or younger and going to shoot someone, be sure to do it before 8:30pm on a weekday or 9:00pm on the weekend!
Chicago (and the state of Illinois) is the laughingstock of the country and the city aldermen are going out of their way to make it worse!

[ChiGuy]

01:45 AM on 07/30/2011

"This is another tool that will help fight crime and help children from becoming victims of crime."
________________________________________________________

Did ya' pick up on that last really, REALLY important part of what Emanuel said, d&d?
Obviously not.

[kingjohn1956]

04:09 PM on 07/29/2011

A complete waste of time and money.To much of the officers time will be spent chasing these young people around.

[simpleperson]

07:01 PM on 07/29/2011

To bad the police will have to do what their parents should.

[ChiGuy]

01:47 AM on 07/30/2011

Nonsense. The slight change in curfew time will not significantly alter their activity out on patrol.

[Vismortis]

03:17 PM on 07/29/2011

While kids should not be running around unsupervised the law reads like something from mid 1900's Germany. Slippery slope here.

[Robin-B]

07:02 PM on 07/31/2011

"It's basically just to protect those children."

Yeah, it's always "just for our protection".

Of course children should be indoors, but LAWS don't keep kids inside, parents do, and because they are good parents.. not because of another LAW telling us what to do.

[frant52]

02:38 PM on 07/29/2011

For the parents who do keep track of their children's whereabouts, this is not a problem. However, for those parents who don't will now be forced to be legally doing what they should do anyway.
I often wonder about parents when I see kids walking down the street at 9:00pm. I'm not talking about teenagers, I'm talking about 8 yr.-olds who are walking to the gas station or convenience store to pick up a liter of Pepsi, or a bag of chips. I was in Subway the other night and there were 3 little boys with a list of sandwiches to buy. Were the parents really unable to go out and get these? Maybe, but they had to have at least $60.00 to pay for this list.
It's true, I don't know how successful the police will be enforcing this law, but if it is a deterrent to a few of these unaware adults, then it's worth it.

[GlennWatson]

12:44 PM on 07/29/2011

Don't pass a law if you can't or won't enforce it.

[ChiGuy]

01:49 AM on 07/30/2011

You comment gives the impression that you think they can't or won't enforce it.
Why?

[wca16]

12:23 PM on 07/29/2011

Nothing will be changed here, they will still go out after curfew. All this does is give law enforcement the ability to stop anyone they see after that time.

Papers Please!

[wca16]

12:21 PM on 07/29/2011

Uh no because, everyone out past that time would be considered breaking the law. Therefore increasing the crime rate. Its an oppressive law at best.

[spoonbill1963]

12:19 PM on 07/29/2011

Kids are meaner now than they were 40 years ago, especially the younger ones. They will not respect a curfew.

[Hlynn]

12:06 PM on 07/29/2011

Here are better solutions, and they were proposed by teenagers:

http://www.villagelife.org/news/archives/6-16-97_teenscurfew.html

[Hlynn]

12:02 PM on 07/29/2011

This is as ridiculous as that other story about fining students for not attending class. How will this be enforced? What if families can't or don't pay? This is another example of government trying to take over what families should be doing and aren't.

And for Emanuel to stay the safest place for a child is at home is not always true. Some homes are very scary. We have children crying and acting out every time school has a break because they don't want to be at home.

Instead of having a curfew, we should have more community centers where anyone can go to be safe and build neighborhood strength through collaboration and relationships. Why not show movies, have games to play, support groups, and other activities people would enjoy and need? Telling people to just go home, when you don't know what is waiting at home or in the neighborhood, is just lazy and irresponsible and it won't solve the crime problems.

[spoonbill1963]

12:20 PM on 07/29/2011

Community centers could work wonders.